People should rent what they can afford and need. Some people need the house with all its space, some only need an apartment.

The big thing is people shouldn’t be spending 50% of their monthly income on rent. It doesn’t help them, their family, or you. Likely, eventually, they’ll have trouble paying, you’ll have to evict them, their lives will be disrupted, their families lives will be disrupted, and you’ll have to spend time evicting them and finding a new tenant else you’re not making money.

> This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive to increase density/add to the housing stock.

First, when you have a renter, your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

Nobody, except for IT can save in predatory environment like that, no matter how much you wish it so.

And you're double-dipping by having THEM pay your mortgage and handsome profit on top. And for what? A "let them eat cake" comment. Im sure someone paying 50% or more their income can 'save for a mortgage'.

Knowing this scam, by the time they save up 50k, the bank will demand 100k down. But landlords can just capitalize on existing equity. Its a scam, through and through, that punishes renters.

We do need residences. And they're simple to build. They're called "rent controlled apartments". But 'ewww socialism' rears its ugly head.